but also another 400 lbs to more than offset its hp advantage. ill take the 400 lbs less weight any day over 65 more hp.
still surprised to see it was ahead but half a second in what is a pretty short lap.

400 pounds? Maybe for the Coupe with a CF roof. Keep in mind this was a sedan and was most likely equipped with a moonroof.

According to THIS test

C63= 3,957 pounds
M3 3,681 pounds

Difference of 276 pounds. Also many things can influence a track time...we don't know the factors each car was driven in, tire tread, drivers etc.

I met Frank (picture at the bottom of the article) this summer, he came over to report on Race the Base. Great guy!

Without starting a 335/M3 war, it's just a great day for the E90's! Happy the tuned 335 more than held it's own. Really surprised the Merc's lap time was that good, I've never had the opportunity to drive one on the track.

400 pounds? Maybe for the Coupe with a CF roof. Keep in mind this was a sedan and was most likely equipped with a moonroof.

According to THIS test

C63= 3,957 pounds
M3 3,681 pounds

Difference of 276 pounds. Also many things can influence a track time...we don't know the factors each car was driven in, tire tread, drivers etc.

Interesting that the C63, even with its ~250-300 lb disadvantage bested both the M3 and the CTS. You would think if it beat the M3 that the circuit would be more of a power track, but then the CTS should've pulled in a much better time. The track might've been just right for the C63's combination of power and weight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaybird124

Something seems a little off with the Caddy. Slower than the M3? I'm BMW through and through but all the American mags put that thing at sub 4 times. Bias?

All these launches are slower than the auto review averages. 0.2s slower to 60 could be chalked up to nothing more than traction issues as a result of poor surfaces. Or not factoring in rollout (which I can't stand) like most US mags do. Or even the fact that 100 km/h translates to 62 mph, not 60.

Interesting that the C63, even with its ~250-300 lb disadvantage bested both the M3 and the CTS. You would think if it beat the M3 that the circuit would be more of a power track, but then the CTS should've pulled in a much better time. The track might've been just right for the C63's combination of power and weight.

All these launches are slower than the auto review averages. 0.2s slower to 60 could be chalked up to nothing more than traction issues as a result of poor surfaces. Or not factoring in rollout (which I can't stand) like most US mags do. Or even the fact that 100 km/h translates to 62 mph, not 60.

So what does the US magazines do? Take flying starts when doing 0-60?

The difference 0-60 or 0-62 is actually quite much, but rolling starts WTF?

The difference 0-60 or 0-62 is actually quite much, but rolling starts WTF?

Taken from Insideline.com

Quote:

A Few Words About Rollout
The term "rollout" might not be familiar, but it comes from the drag strip. The arrangement of the timing beams for drag racing can be confusing, primarily because the 7-inch separation between the "pre-stage" and "stage" beams is not the source of rollout. The pre-stage beam, which has no effect on timing, is only there to help drivers creep up to the starting position. Rollout comes from the 1-foot separation (11.5 inches, actually) between the point where the leading edge of a front tire "rolls in" to the final staging beam — triggering the countdown to the green light that starts the race — and the point where the trailing edge of that tire "rolls out" of that same beam, the triggering event that starts the clock. A driver skilled at "shallow staging" can therefore get almost a free foot of untimed acceleration before the clock officially starts, effectively achieving a rolling-start velocity of 3-5 mph and shaving the 0.3 second it typically takes to cover that distance off his elapsed time (ET) in the process.

We believe the use of rollout for quarter-mile timed runs is appropriate, as this test is designed to represent an optimum drag strip run that a car owner can replicate at a drag strip. In the spirit of consistency, we also follow NHRA practice when calculating quarter-mile trap speed at the end of the run. So we publish the average speed over the final 66 feet of the quarter-mile run, even though our VBOX can tell us the instantaneous speed at the end of the 1,320-foot course, which is usually faster.

On the other hand, the use of rollout with 0-60 times is inappropriate in our view. For one, 0-60-mph acceleration is not a drag-racing convention. More important, it's called ZERO to 60 mph, not 3 or 4 mph to 60 mph, which is what you get when you apply rollout. While it is tempting to use rollout in order to make 0-60 acceleration look more impressive by 0.3 second, thereby hyping both the car's performance and the apparent skill of the test driver, we think it's cheating.

Nevertheless, some car magazines and some automobile manufacturers use rollout anyway — and fail to tell their customers. We've decided against this practice. We publish real 0-60 times instead. But in order to illuminate this issue and ensure we do justice to every car's real performance, we've begun publishing a clearly marked "with rollout" 0-60 time alongside the primary no-rollout 0-60 time so readers can see the effects of this bogus practice.